Afterword : conversations beyond dichotomies

Abstract

The fact that a book authored by a judge should feature an afterword at all, let alone one written by someone who toils in the discipline reputedly fathered by Socrates, may be met with playful bemusement by some readers and elicit a chuckle from others. Judges are often thought of as uttering the proverbial final word, while the Socratic method of dialectical inquiry privileges the questioning of assumptions and the opening up of further avenues for critical conversations over any firm conclusions. This book is obviously not comparable to any of the judgments Silvio Meli handed down in his long career on the bench, and the purpose of an afterword is precisely to introduce conversations that might result from reading a book. I thought of beginning with what reads almost like a caricature of the apparent dichotomy between the approaches of legal professionals and philosophers because it impinges on the contentious question of what is meant by the 'philosophy of law' and, therefore, on the subject matter of this book. The need to overcome this dichotomy seems to be an implicit leitmotif present throughout its pages, well beyond the introductory thoughts of the first chapter. [Excerpt]